Can I compare Protestants to Gnostics seeing how both (i think) deny the real presence?

[susanlo]

Theodoret says

The partaker shares in the divine mystery of the Eucharistic Real Presence body and blood, and rather than just taking into account the visible bread and wine, to instead believe the change that happens as an act of grace, even though you cannot see it.

Theodoret’s imaginary contender states “No for I maintain Jesus Christ to be bodiless.” Theodoret’s argument is since his contender maintains the Eucharistic divine Real Presence mystery, it would only be true that Jesus Christ had a body.

If Theodoret believed there was simply a change in “meaning” or “significance” as you suggest, his argument becomes pointless.

He is refuting the idea that Christ had only one nature - monophysitism. He is saying the Lord didn’t have a body, but Jesus did, I believe. It is hard to understand.
"Orth.— You have spoken as a lover of truth should speak, for when the Lord had taken the symbol, He did not say “this is my godhead,” but “this is my body;” and again “this is my blood” and in another place “the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.”

Eran.— These words are true, for they are the divine oracles.

Orth.— If then they are true, I suppose the Lord had a body.

Eran.— No; for I maintain him to be bodiless.

Orth.— But you confess that He had a body?

Eran.— I say that the Word was made flesh, for so I have been taught."
newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm

 

[PRmerger]

He is refuting the idea that Christ had only one nature - monophysitism. He is saying the Lord didn’t have a body, but Jesus did, I believe. It is hard to understand.
"Orth.— You have spoken as a lover of truth should speak, for when the Lord had taken the symbol, He did not say “this is my godhead,” but “this is my body;” and again “this is my blood” and in another place “the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.”

Eran.— These words are true, for they are the divine oracles.

Orth.— If then they are true, I suppose the Lord had a body.

Eran.— No; for I maintain him to be bodiless.

Orth.— But you confess that He had a body?

Eran.— I say that the Word was made flesh, for so I have been taught."
newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm

There were also many, many folks who rejected the Trinity.

That’s why we need a magisterium, because anyone can read the Bible and come to an understanding that is contrary to the kerygma.

 

[susanlo]

Theodoret
“And after the consecration how do you name these? Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood? I do. As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing”

Here is a larger section: (Eran. is representing the heresy and Orth. represents the orthodox)
"Eran.— What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?

Orth.— It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.

Eran.— Let your answer be put enigmatically.

Orth.— Food of grain of such a sort.

Eran.— And how name we the other symbol?

Orth.— This name too is common, signifying species of drink.

Eran.— And after the consecration how do you name these?

Orth.— Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

Eran.— And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?

Orth.— I do.

Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord."
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

I believe he is saying that Jesus’ body is the same after resurrection, but it is now immortal. Jesus’ body “preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body;” He used the elements of the Eucharist to show that example. Eran, representing the heretical argument says that the invocation changes the bread and wine and Orthodoxus calls him on that.

Orthodoxus says he partakes of the body and blood, but of course so do the churches of today that believe in a spiritual or symbolic Eucharist. We call it the body and blood, but we don’t believe it has mutated in substance. The significance of the body and blood is still present.

It is challenging because the Eucharist is not the primary discussion. I just think that this is evidence that the idea of a change in substance is still just starting to form at this time in thinking. Transubstantiation was not understood by all in the first 500 years. It is an idea that evolved over time.

 

[Darryl_B]

Here is a larger section: (Eran. is representing the heresy and Orth. represents the orthodox)
"Eran.— What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?

Orth.— It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.

Eran.— Let your answer be put enigmatically.

Orth.— Food of grain of such a sort.

Eran.— And how name we the other symbol?

Orth.— This name too is common, signifying species of drink.

Eran.— And after the consecration how do you name these?

Orth.— Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

Eran.— And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?

Orth.— I do.

Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord."
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

I believe he is saying that Jesus’ body is the same after resurrection, but it is now immortal. Jesus’ body “preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body;” He used the elements of the Eucharist to show that example. Eran, representing the heretical argument says that the invocation changes the bread and wine and Orthodoxus calls him on that.

Orthodoxus says he partakes of the body and blood, but of course so do the churches of today that believe in a spiritual or symbolic Eucharist. We call it the body and blood, but we don’t believe it has mutated in substance. The significance of the body and blood is still present.

It is challenging because the Eucharist is not the primary discussion. I just think that this is evidence that the idea of a change in substance is still just starting to form at this time in thinking. Transubstantiation was not understood by all in the first 500 years. It is an idea that evolved over time.

Actually Orth and Eran agree on

And after the consecration how do you name these? Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood? I do. As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing

Orth has already said this

To them that are initiated in divine things the intention is plain. For he wished the partakers in the divine mysteries not to give heed to the nature of the visible objects, but, by means of the variation of the names, to believe the change wrought of grace.

what Orth disagrees with Eran on is the very next thing

so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Therefore I can see no way how you can derive your position from Theodoret’s statements without doing a serious injustice to what is said by entirely ignoring the change wrought of grace.

So you are welcome of course to read Theodoret how you greatly desire to have it read, but is it fair to potentially be slandering his real faith, just for the sake of desiring a witness (please just one)?

 

[PRmerger]

Apparently we see the writings of Augustine in a different light. I see him saying that John 6:53 is figurative. He says repeatedly in his writings that the elements are a “mere physical likeness” and “resemblance.” There was no doctrine of transubstantiation for him to agree or disagree with and theologians were allowed to form their own instruction on how it occurred.

newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”

Susan, is it your position that Augustine is denying transubstantiation?

 

[susanlo]

Susan, is it your position that Augustine is denying transubstantiation?

I don’t think that he could truly deny a doctrine that wasn’t created until centuries later.

I do think his writings show no evidence that he believed a change in substance occurred. His writings do show that the bread and wine have a “resemblance” and “mere physical likeness” to the things that they signify. In his writing entitled “On Christian Doctrine” (Book 3) he is writing about how to know if something is meant to be literal or figurative. He lists John 6:53 and then states that this is a figure. newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

J.N.D. Kelly wrote about the understanding of the Eucharist in his book Early Christian Doctrines. J.N.D. Kelly was an Anglican who was a Theology Professor at Oxford and was highly respected. He mentions Augustine as he is introducing the idea of the Eucharist and how things are developing between the time of Nicea and Chalcedon. He states:
“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap.** In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine**. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up
This quote was from page 440. Then on page 446-449 he discusses Augustine’s understanding of the Eucharist in detail including a summary of other scholars’ views. He seems to summarize that Augustine had a symbolic view like Tertullian and Cyprian, but may even take it one step further to spiritualizing it.

You may disagree with me about Augustine’s understanding of the elements of the Eucharist, but I think it is clear that many scholars agree that not everyone taught transubstantiation before the Catholic Church made an official Teaching in later centuries.

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t think that he could truly deny a doctrine that wasn’t created until centuries later.

This is wrong. The doctrine was only clearly defined once it came under attack. Prior to that the doctrine was just a given fact by all the Church Fathers. All of them. Articulation, wording, means of expressing such a mystery varied, and may at times seem archaic, but you are fairly much on your own in terms of your doctrine which wasn’t created until centuries later.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that he could truly deny a doctrine that wasn’t created until centuries late

So we are agreed, then, that St. Augustine never denied transubstantiation.

I do think his writings show no evidence that he believed a change in substance occurred

But it’s clear that his writings demonstrate he believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, yes?

Are we agreed on that?

 

[PRmerger]

You may disagree with me about Augustine’s understanding of the elements of the Eucharist, but I think it is clear that many scholars agree that not everyone taught transubstantiation before the Catholic Church made an official Teaching in later centuries.

And this is no different than the dogma of the Trinity.

One should be consistent and apply the same paradigm to the Trinity.

If your position is: people thought different things about [Transubstantation, the Trinity] until it was formally defined, therefore…

Transubstantiation is a novelty and should be rejected.

You will also have to declare:

The Trinity is a novelty and should be rejected.

You can’t propose what you’re proposing without rejecting a central dogma of Christianity, namely: the Trinity.

And I think that puts you in a very, very precarious position, Susan.

 

[guanophore]

It is challenging because the Eucharist is not the primary discussion. I just think that this is evidence that the idea of a change in substance is still just starting to form at this time in thinking. Transubstantiation was not understood by all in the first 500 years. It is an idea that evolved over time.

I don’t think this is an accurate assertion. The Apostles’ believed in the Real Presence from the beginning. It is not something that was “not understood at all for the first 500 years”.

As far as I know, the earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century. This is a Latin term that was used to explain/describe the Real Presence centuries later. Prior to that, it was commonly referred to in Greek as metousiosis. I actually prefer the approach of the Eastern Church in leaving as a Divine Mystery rather than trying to rationalize it. Certainly, especially in the West, there were efforts to explain the Divine Mystery that evolved over time, but that does not mean the concept was in any way New. We can see it clearly in the NT and early fathers.

I don't think that he could truly deny a doctrine that wasn't created until centuries later.

I think you are confused, Susan. Catholics believe that all of the teachings of Jesus were deposited to the Church through the Apostles. We hold that no new doctrines can be added after the death of the last Apostle. For that reason, no “doctrine was created centuries later”.

I do think his writings show no evidence that he believed a change in substance occurred. His writings do show that the bread and wine have a "resemblance" and "mere physical likeness" to the things that they signify. In his writing entitled "On Christian Doctrine" (Book 3) he is writing about how to know if something is meant to be literal or figurative. He lists John 6:53 and then states that this is a figure. [newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm)

Augustine was a Catholic who believed in the Real Presence, as did all those who embraced the One Faith founded by Jesus.

 He mentions Augustine as he is introducing the idea of the Eucharist and how things are developing between the time of Nicea and Chalcedon.

Perhaps you have a misunderstanding about “how things are developing”? What develops is our understanding and articulation of the doctrines, not the doctrine itself. A good example of this is the word Trinity, not found in the NT, but the concept was not “invented” at the Council of Nicea 325 AD. It was received from the Apostles.

...i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood.... It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine

. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine.

What you are citing here is not the invention of doctrines, as were those formed during the Reformation, but is referring to ways of talking about and understanding a doctrine that was received from the Apostles.

... Augustine's understanding of the Eucharist in detail including a summary of other scholars' views. He seems to summarize that Augustine had a symbolic view like Tertullian and Cyprian, but may even take it one step further to spiritualizing it.

Maybe it is important to you, for some reason, to reject that these Fathers of the Church were Catholic, and held Catholic beliefs, including that of the Real Presence?

You may disagree with me about Augustine’s understanding of the elements of the Eucharist, but I think it is clear that many scholars agree that not everyone taught transubstantiation before the Catholic Church made an official Teaching in later centuries.

Of course we will have to disagree with how his writings have been applied here.

Of course I will agree with you that the term “transubstantiation” came much later. Even later than Trinity, hypostatic union, Theotokos, and the canon of Scripture.

 

[susanlo]

You copied this quote into the reply:

"…i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood… It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine

. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine."

But the original quote I cited without the"…" is:
“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7Y…/n451/mode/2up

I do believe that J.N.D. Kelly is stating that the idea of a change in substance is being developed. He calls Cyril of Jerusalem the “pioneer of the conversion doctrine” on page 441.
J.N.D. Kelly speaks of “realism” in the concept of the Eucharist from the beginning. It seems for J.N.D. Kelly “realism” and “transubstantiation” are not the same concept.

 

[guanophore]

Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support.

I do believe that J.N.D. Kelly is stating that the idea of a change in substance is being developed. He calls Cyril of Jerusalem the “pioneer of the conversion doctrine” on page 441.
J.N.D. Kelly speaks of “realism” in the concept of the Eucharist from the beginning. It seems for J.N.D. Kelly “realism” and “transubstantiation” are not the same concept.

I think that what Kelly means by “realism” is that everyone (except heretics) understood the biblical passages literally. “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist,” i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).


More Iggy:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

I certainly do agree that modern theologias in our period have interpreted things very differently than what we recieved from the Apostles. I also agree that the term and rationale of “transubstantiation” was a much later development as a way of describing the Real Presence.

 

[susanlo]

I think that what Kelly means by “realism” is that everyone (except heretics) understood the biblical passages literally. “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist,” i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Augustine says John 6:53 is a figure in his passage about how to interpret if something is to be taken literal and figuratively. This is in earlier posts in the thread.

More Iggy:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

I certainly do agree that modern theologias in our period have interpreted things very differently than what we recieved from the Apostles. I also agree that the term and rationale of “transubstantiation” was a much later development as a way of describing the Real Presence.

I am not sure how these quotes from Ignatius show definite understanding that a change in substance occurs during the Eucharist.
The first quote was addressed at the beginning of the thread. (They didn’t state the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus, because they said Jesus never had any flesh and wasn’t God incarnate - This is a reason not to practice a symbolic Eucharist as well as one where it would change substances.)

The second one is about breaking one bread - in reference to unity.

The third one was about his desire to be martyred. A larger quote from this section reveals a lot of allegory:
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-roberts.html
“CHAPTER VII.–REASON OF DESIRING TO DIE.
The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world.** Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you**; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is** no fire in me desiring to be fed**; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."

Is he stating he wants to have transubstantiated communion? Or that he is ready to enter the next kingdom?

The fourth one is also about unity and doesn’t mention a change in substance.

I don’t know that I can prove Ignatius did not believe in a what would later be called transubstantiation, but I don’t know that there is proof that he did either.

 

[guanophore]

Augustine says John 6:53 is a figure in his passage about how to interpret if something is to be taken literal and figuratively. This is in earlier posts in the thread.

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.…

Yes, the Jews thought He was talking about His non-glorified Body. We can be certain that Augustine had read Ignatius, and believed in the Real Presence in the same way.

Augustine also rests his theology on the lesser known St. Hilary of Poitiers. St. Hilary was a fourth century Gallic (French) bishop known as “the Hammer of the Arians.” Augustine remarks, “Who does not know that the Gallic bishop Hilary is to be revered as the keenest defender of the Catholic Church against the heretics?”

I am not sure how these quotes from Ignatius show definite understanding that a change in substance occurs during the Eucharist.

I agree with you. The early Christians did not do a great deal of philosophical parsing of the concept of the Real Presence. It was taught as given to the Church by Jesus, but it was not until much later that controversy began to develop, the theologians began to attempt to make rational sense out if it. Personally, I think that rationality falls short when it comes to defining the mysteries of God. They just accepted it the same way we do the Creation:

“And God said…and it was so.”

The first quote was addressed at the beginning of the thread. (They didn’t state the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus, because they said Jesus never had any flesh and wasn’t God incarnate - This is a reason not to practice a symbolic Eucharist as well as one where it would change substances.)

I am not sure I am getting the point. Are you saying that the heretics denied the Real Presence, so this is a good reason not to practice a symbolic Eucharist? Sorry to be so dense maybe I need to go back thru the thread?

I got on this thread late because I saw you were here!

The second one is about breaking one bread - in reference to unity.

Yes. the unity is created by the joining together of all those who likewise believe in the Real Presence. If one does not, they have excommunicated themselves, since “they confess not that it is the Body and Blood”.

 

[guanophore]

More Augustine:

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this 'And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

Is he stating he wants to have transubstantiated communion? Or that he is ready to enter the next kingdom?

I think for him it is the same. To be in Christ is to be ready to die for Him.

The fourth one is also about unity and doesn't mention a change in substance.

I don’t know that I can prove Ignatius did not believe in a what would later be called transubstantiation, but I don’t know that there is proof that he did either.

The Eastern Christians are not fond of the term either, though they will still affirm the same doctrine of the Real Presence.

 

[susanlo]

More Augustine:

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this 'And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

These were provided earlier in the thread. I wasn’t able to find the full text of all of them online. I did provide links to some sources that provide the full context. Post #64 has some of the links. Did you have a chance to read the full context of all of these quotes? Do you know where I can see the full text of the ones I didn’t find? It is so hard to know what someone is really saying in just a little quote.

 

[guanophore]

These were provided earlier in the thread. I wasn’t able to find the full text of all of them online. I did provide links to some sources that provide the full context. Post #64 has some of the links. Did you have a chance to read the full context of all of these quotes? Do you know where I can see the full text of the ones I didn’t find? It is so hard to know what someone is really saying in just a little quote.

I have full texts on my computer but we are not supposed to paste such long passages on here. Maybe I can capture enough of the context if we do them one at a time?

 

[susanlo]

I am not sure I am getting the point. Are you saying that the heretics denied the Real Presence, so this is a good reason not to practice a symbolic Eucharist? Sorry to be so dense maybe I need to go back thru the thread?

I am saying that the heretics denied that Jesus had flesh and blood during his time on earth.

Ignatius was speaking of a group of Gnostics believing in docecism: earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/smyrnaeans.html
“Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one… Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances.” - britannica.com/topic/Docetism

This doesn’t mean that he did not believe in what would be called transubstantiation. But for me it doesn’t rule out a symbolical view. I would not participate in the symbolic communion of the flesh and blood of Jesus if he did not have flesh and blood and was not really wounded and did not really shed blood on the cross for our salvation.

 

[guanophore]

I am saying that the heretics denied that Jesus had flesh and blood during his time on earth.

Ignatius was speaking of a group of Gnostics believing in docecism: earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/smyrnaeans.html
“Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one… Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances.” - britannica.com/topic/Docetism

Thanks for that clarification.

This doesn’t mean that he did not believe in what would be called transubstantiation. But for me it doesn’t rule out a symbolical view. I would not participate in the symbolic communion of the flesh and blood of Jesus if he did not have flesh and blood and was not really wounded and did not really shed blood on the cross for our salvation.

I think it would be hard for any of the Early Christians, just as it still is for many of us today, to embrace the concept of Transubstantiation.

It was not even fully fleshed when it was adopted atthe Fourth Lateran Council. In the 13th century Aristotelian metaphysics became an acceptable method for philosophical elaboration and the concepts of metaphysics began to develop.

Our great mental giant Thomas Aquinas wove this into our more current formulation. All of Scholasticism looked at Christian theology through the lens of Aristotelianism, so it helps to try to understand that the terms “real” and “substance” used in the concept of Transubstantiation within the framework of Aristotelian substance theory, and not in the now-current meaning of referring to the physical or material. Medieval philosophers who used Aristotelian concepts frequently distinguished between substantial forms and accidental forms. For Aristotle, a “substance” (ousia) is an individual thing, which may possess accidental forms as non-essential properties.

It is also important to understand that “symbol” was not understood the way this term is used in modern American language. A symbol for the ancients embodied and contained that which it signified, as opposed to the “signs” spoken of in the Gospel of John, which were intended not to embody, but to point to that which was embodied.

Modern evangelicals, when they speak of “symbol” are generally rejecting the Real Presence as it was understood and believed up to the time of the Reformation.

 

[Tomyris]

The word “symbol” draws a lot of fire. Let’s look at some of it’s possible meanings.

1. A representation of, without any of what it represents. As in, a smilie is a representation of a happy face.

1. Something in which that which is being symbolized is present. The flag is the symbol of our country. You respect it because you respect our country. You burn it because you hate our country. There are implications on the real thing on what you do with the symbol.
2. The symbol actually has some of the properties of the real thing, if not all of them. An ambassador as representative or symbol of his country can hold the authority of that country. ‘He who receives you receives Me’. The symbol is steeped, imbued, whatever, with the reality of the thing symbolized, and they cannot be separated.

An article I read some years ago contained something that I still find amusing, and that was that the author was faulting some people who took a symbolic approach for believing in the Real Absence in the Eucharist - as if God, somehow, was present everywhere *except in the Eucharistic elements. *That is an exaggeration of the position, but ir also, uh, is a symbol of where there were at.

So when you critique symbolic understandings of the Eucharist, you need to be clear as to which understanding you are critiquing. Without stretching, you can say that the Catholic understanding itself is symbolic, and that the symbol not only contains the reality but is the reality.